This thread has veered off on a tangent, but I think it’s still important to be factually accurate. In #msg-43120872, you said that NM283 and IDX184 “could never be paired as complementary agents,” which is not true. Had NM283 been worth pursuing, it indeed could have been paired with IDX184. Combining two nukes that act on different RNA bases not only makes sense—it has been the rationale behind such “backbone” HIV products as Truvada and Epzicom/Kivexa. VRUS is attempting to replicate this approach in HCV, and it has developed prodrugs of the monophosphate nucleotide analogs of two different RNA bases in its attempt to do so.
All told, I think your #msg-43102142 post was a good one and I agree with almost everything you said there. The notable exception—where I disagree strenuously with what you posted—is your assertion that IDX184 was merely a more potent version of NM283. I presume that, after further reflection, you no longer believe this. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
